It would ... be extremely odd, would it not, for the following scenario to occur: the Communion as a whole proposes and circulates a covenant; Anglican church X rejects the covenant, but Diocese Y within X accepts the covenant; X then seeks to discipline Y. Presumably X's grounds for discipline of Y would be some kind of illegality with respect to Y's constitution. But Y's grounds for signing to the covenant would be commitment to Anglicanism. At this point the true bearer of Anglicanism would by Y and not X. Morally, at least, X would cease to be Anglican in the substance of its faith!In my view, the sheer possibility of such chaos reinforces my own point that the 'game' (keeping TEC and similar variants of Anglicanism within a global Communion) is well and truly over, not least because there is de facto division in their own backyard. The whole thing has become totally incoherent, and it is impossible for a 'covenant' to draw it back together.
In further support of this, I would refer to the complete lack of response on the Fulcrum forum to a thread about the bishops' statement started two days ago. Healthy discussion continues there in a thread started by my own post here on the cross and the resurrection (not, though, vs. the resurrection) and there is a thread on the Covenant itself, but that is going round in circles and off at tangents (if such a thing is possible).
The silence surely speaks volumes. Who, any longer, can unravel anything of this? And what difference will it make? And finally, and most importantly, who really cares?
Certainly not TEC, which carries on regardless.
24 April 2009
When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.